## Facts

- Douglas R. Gremillion was charged with manslaughter for the death of Robert Dupuy following a fight at the Chalet Lounge in Alexandria, Louisiana, on February 7, 1987.
- At the bar, Dupuy argued with his ex-wife, Susan Dupuy, and threatened William Swain, who had been dancing with her.
- As Dupuy was leaving, he exchanged words with Gremillion and Susan; Gremillion claimed Dupuy threatened him and reached into his coat pocket as if for a gun.
- Gremillion punched Dupuy, knocking him into tables; while Dupuy was unconscious, Gremillion stomped him multiple times in the chest and abdomen; there was evidence Susan also kicked him.
- Dupuy later sought treatment at the Alexandria Veterans Hospital for severe abdominal pain, was diagnosed with traumatic pancreatitis, underwent surgery, and died on February 25, 1987.
- Dupuy made statements at the hospital, including to Deputy Bowden; the defense asserted Dupuy told Bowden that “three white men” attacked him and that he could not identify his attackers.
- The State argued Gremillion’s assault caused the fatal injuries; the defense contended Swain and two friends were the actual attackers.
- At trial, the court excluded Deputy Bowden’s testimony about Dupuy’s “three white men” statement as hearsay.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s hospital statement to a deputy that he was attacked by “three white men” was admissible as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence supporting the defense theory of alternate perpetrators.
2. Whether excluding that statement was reversible error because it significantly impaired the defense and was not harmless.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the manslaughter conviction and 18-year hard-labor sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the excluded statement was admissible as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence relevant to the identity and number of assailants and to the defense theory.
- The court found the trial court’s exclusion of the statement was erroneous and not harmless given its importance to the defense.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement is hearsay only if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; statements may be admissible when offered for a limited, non-hearsay purpose as circumstantial evidence from which the jury may draw inferences.
- Evidence bearing directly on identity and an alternative-perpetrator theory may be admissible even if it would be excluded when offered for its truth.
- Erroneous exclusion of defense evidence warrants reversal when it substantially affects the jury’s ability to evaluate the defense and cannot be treated as harmless error.

## Conclusion

Because the victim’s hospital statement describing “three white men” assailants was admissible as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence central to the defense theory, its exclusion improperly limited the defense case and required reversal and a new trial.


State v. Gremillion, 542 So. 2d 1074 (La. 1989)